I remember hearing about VLC being pulled in the first place, and basically asking "WTF?" at the time. I don't understand how the GPL and distributing an iOS apo are incompatible, so long as the source is available.

I'm glad it's back, though. I've just recently started using it on the PC, and I really appreciate how flexible it is.

Section 6 of GPLv2 says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

When the App Store terms prohibit commercial use, general distribution, and modification, these are exactly the kinds of "further restrictions" that are not allowed thanks to the last sentence here.

This is a crucial part of the GPL's copyleft. Without this section, it would be trivially easy to keep freedom away from users by putting additional requirements in a separate legal agreement, like Terms of Service or an NDA.

Section 6 is not legal minutia: if you take it away, the license would completely fail to work as designed at all.

I remember hearing about VLC being pulled in the first place, and basically asking "WTF?" at the time. I don't understand how the GPL and distributing an iOS apo are incompatible, so long as the source is available.

I'm glad it's back, though. I've just recently started using it on the PC, and I really appreciate how flexible it is.

That was more than complicated, but basically, one of the developers felt that since a user could not freely modify the application on iOS, it did not follow the GPL. Basically. If you want details, the FSF explains it better:

I remember hearing about VLC being pulled in the first place, and basically asking "WTF?" at the time. I don't understand how the GPL and distributing an iOS apo are incompatible, so long as the source is available.

I'm glad it's back, though. I've just recently started using it on the PC, and I really appreciate how flexible it is.

That was more than complicated, but basically, one of the developers felt that since a user could not freely modify the application on iOS, it did not follow the GPL. Basically. If you want details, the FSF explains it better:

Good to hear. It seems to me that the GPL is going the way of the dodo, replaced by far more permissive BSD / MIT style licenses. This is increasingly true in new software.

Doesn't BSD allow re-use without publishing source code? I don't like that idea at all. Once something is open source, I don't like the idea of downstream users closing it back up.

I'm not real well versed on the re-use scenarios, though...

Theoretically yes, but often times any changes will get submitted to the project simply because if you close the source code, and make changes, you essentially lock yourself into fixing any bugs that are present in the current version of the software. And it takes a lot of effort to back port changes from two diverging projects.

I hope it will support Dolby AC3 sound ... lots of older video files need that and it's a bit of pain to convert them using AC3 Killer. It's an issue with y current video player of choice for iPad Mini (OPlayer HD).

Looks like all the extremely hard work of relicensing VLC by Jean-Baptiste Kempf finally paid off.

The work of relicensing nearly half a million SLOC included emailing hundreds of developers, tracking them down if their contact details were inaccurate (~75% of emails bounced or didn't receive a reply) even to the point of stalking, and rewriting their contributions if there was no way to contact them.

Wasn't the dispute here whether the section applied to the source code versus the binary? iOS placed major restrictions on the binary distribution, but none on the source distribution. Anyone could have taken the code and whipped up their own build.

As someone who always felt GPL was focused on source code and not binaries, I never quite understood the anti-iOS argument - who cares about the binary if you can still take the source and create your own binary?

Quote:

Section 6 of GPLv2 says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Good to hear. It seems to me that the GPL is going the way of the dodo, replaced by far more permissive BSD / MIT style licenses. This is increasingly true in new software.

Doesn't BSD allow re-use without publishing source code? I don't like that idea at all. Once something is open source, I don't like the idea of downstream users closing it back up.

I'm not real well versed on the re-use scenarios, though...

I am not an OSS expert, but BSD allows you to do whatever you want with the source code and does not restrict distribution in any significant way. MIT is only slightly different in that it allows for distribution without contribution credit, while BSD does not. One can dual license the source code for MIT/BSD. Apache is like the BSD/MIT license except that it makes explicit patent grants from the code copyright holders.

Hmm, it seems that it won't support Ftp, Nfs nor Smb. They only mention some sort of Wifi support but i couldn't find any details. How can I easily use my media library that I have on my Linux NAS at home?

A version of VLC created by the company Applidium first made its debut on the App Store back in November 2010, but it was pulled in January 2011 due to a licensing dispute. All versions of VLC were then open-source and licensed under GPLv2; the App Store imposes its own licensing and DRM restrictions on apps. One of VLC’s original developers, Rémi Denis-Courmont, claimed that the licensing policies did not mesh and filed a complaint against the app. It was shortly removed.

VLC 2.0 for iOS is licensed under both the Mozilla Public License v2 as well as the GNU General Public License v2 (or later). “The MPLv2 is applicable for distribution on the App Store,” Felix Paul Kühne of VideoLAN told Ars.

What Casey fails to mention is if this new version is developed by Applidium still or back in the reigns of the original dev group.

Pointing to if those of us that managed to grab an original copy 3 years ago simply have to update our existing versions or we do we need to go peruse the App Store and glean another copy.

Looks like all the extremely hard work of relicensing VLC by Jean-Baptiste Kempf finally paid off.

The work of relicensing nearly half a million SLOC included emailing hundreds of developers, tracking them down if their contact details were inaccurate (~75% of emails bounced or didn't receive a reply) even to the point of stalking, and rewriting their contributions if there was no way to contact them.

Wasn't the dispute here whether the section applied to the source code versus the binary? iOS placed major restrictions on the binary distribution, but none on the source distribution. Anyone could have taken the code and whipped up their own build.

As someone who always felt GPL was focused on source code and not binaries, I never quite understood the anti-iOS argument - who cares about the binary if you can still take the source and create your own binary?

Quote:

Section 6 of GPLv2 says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

The problem is that you can't provide the Apple libraries (not even as binaries) because they are licensed by Apple and not yours to give away. With the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL) you have to provide all of the source code to make the application. Some people refer to this as a "viral license", in that if you want to use GPL code in your code all of your code must now be released under the GPL. This is very much the intent of the GPL, and if someone releases their code with this license you have to accept their decision (just like someone choosing to use a BSD license or not release their source at all should equally be respected)

The LGPL only requires that you provide all of your code (in addition to the original LGPL code) necessary to make it link as a library. That may be 0 lines or a wrapper to make it work with iOS/Objective C, depends on how the developer made the library.

Wasn't the dispute here whether the section applied to the source code versus the binary? iOS placed major restrictions on the binary distribution, but none on the source distribution. Anyone could have taken the code and whipped up their own build.

As someone who always felt GPL was focused on source code and not binaries, I never quite understood the anti-iOS argument - who cares about the binary if you can still take the source and create your own binary?

Yes, this was what I always wondered about the GPL and iOS. Who cares what anyone does with a binary of GPL'd source code? If you aren't happy with the strings attached to a specific binary just get the sources and compile your own binary. But then: if even *one* author of a few lines of that code wants to make trouble he surely can and exactly this is what happened here. The GPL is a bit vague about binaries (because it basically cares only about the sources), this is always heaven for legal wrecking of all kinds.

There are lots of GPL'd apps in the app store, by the way. As long as the authors of the source are happy with it, this doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

I've been waiting for a robust, free way to play non h.264 videos on my iPad pretty much since I got it. There are a few solid free players, but none that will play anything the way VLC does. I've got one that will play most x264 videos with no problems, but another for xvid titles. It's a real pain. Looking forward to dumping them all for VLC.

Looks like all the extremely hard work of relicensing VLC by Jean-Baptiste Kempf finally paid off.

The work of relicensing nearly half a million SLOC included emailing hundreds of developers, tracking them down if their contact details were inaccurate (~75% of emails bounced or didn't receive a reply) even to the point of stalking, and rewriting their contributions if there was no way to contact them.

Looks like all the extremely hard work of relicensing VLC by Jean-Baptiste Kempf finally paid off.

The work of relicensing nearly half a million SLOC included emailing hundreds of developers, tracking them down if their contact details were inaccurate (~75% of emails bounced or didn't receive a reply) even to the point of stalking, and rewriting their contributions if there was no way to contact them.

Wasn't the dispute here whether the section applied to the source code versus the binary? iOS placed major restrictions on the binary distribution, but none on the source distribution. Anyone could have taken the code and whipped up their own build.

As someone who always felt GPL was focused on source code and not binaries, I never quite understood the anti-iOS argument - who cares about the binary if you can still take the source and create your own binary?

Exactly. GPL allows you to do basically anything with the binaries (including sell them - look at all the EBay auctions for Audacity with other names attached); its' the source code that has to be freely distributed IF you distribute the binary.

What the GPL doesn't allow you to do is prevent distribution.

For example, I can choose to charge $10,000 for my Notepad++ mod that gives you WYSIWYG HTML editing... but once you've paid me that $10,000, you could then post it on the web for free without my permission.

I think that was the problem, now that I think about it: apps downloaded from iTunes can't be redistributed by anyone other than Apple, so that portion of the GPL is violated - not by the person who uploaded the app, but by Apple themselves.

So Apple's "solution" was to yank the app and not distribute it all.

Personally, I'd be a lot happier if Apple just allowed users to sideload apps.

Good to hear. It seems to me that the GPL is going the way of the dodo, replaced by far more permissive BSD / MIT style licenses. This is increasingly true in new software.

Edit : I am not making any judgement call for or against the GPL. Not sure what the down-votes are for.

Because you say "good to hear" then immediately follow it up by commenting on how you believe that the "GPL is going the way of the dodo" as if you're happy this is the case. It absolutely comes across as a judgement call.

It's especially ironic here, given how iOS is fundamentally hostile to everything the GPL stands for and the iTunes store applies additional license restrictions that (still) violate the GPL.

It also didn't help that the developer that had issue was working for Nokia developing Meego at the time.

Those dastardly MeeGo developers. It couldn't at all be because he had valid concerns about GPL software being used on a hostile platform. It had to be him striking at Apple on behalf of Nokia, right?

Quote:

Theoretically yes, but often times any changes will get submitted to the project simply because if you close the source code, and make changes, you essentially lock yourself into fixing any bugs that are present in the current version of the software. And it takes a lot of effort to back port changes from two diverging projects.

Both ends are purely theoretical, you'll simply never hear about what's not contributed back.

Theoretically yes, but often times any changes will get submitted to the project simply because if you close the source code, and make changes, you essentially lock yourself into fixing any bugs that are present in the current version of the software. And it takes a lot of effort to back port changes from two diverging projects.

Both ends are purely theoretical, you'll simply never hear about what's not contributed back.

As someone who always felt GPL was focused on source code and not binaries, I never quite understood the anti-iOS argument - who cares about the binary if you can still take the source and create your own binary?

uhuznaa wrote:

The GPL is a bit vague about binaries (because it basically cares only about the sources), this is always heaven for legal wrecking of all kinds.

For example, if you wanted to use GPL'ed software in your product, but for whatever reason didn't want to play by the GPL's rules, you could simply distribute the GPL parts as source code, and your proprietary parts as object code, and then just expect the users of your software to compile the GPL parts themselves and link them with your proprietary parts to get the final application. Your users would also be barred from redistributing their compiled application. I don't think there's anything in the GPL that would prevent this behavior (someone chime in and correct me if I'm wrong), but it's so crazy stupid and impractical that nobody does things this way.

uhuznaa wrote:

There are lots of GPL'd apps in the app store, by the way. As long as the authors of the source are happy with it, this doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

I suppose, then, that the authors of these apps are either technically violating the terms of the license, since the App Store imposes restrictions that the GPL does not allow, or that the code is somehow dual-licensed and the app is distributed under the terms of a (more permissive) license that's not the GPL. There's a third option, too, that you alluded to: the author of the app simply doesn't care.

If you wanted to use GPL'ed software in your product, but for whatever reason didn't want to play by the GPL's rules, you could simply distribute the GPL parts as source code, and your proprietary parts as object code, and then just expect the users of your software to compile the GPL parts and link them with your proprietary parts to get the final application. Your users would also be barred from redistributing their compiled application. I don't think there's anything in the GPL that would prevent this behavior (someone chime in and correct me if I'm wrong), but it's so crazy stupid and impractical that nobody does things this way.

You could also simply compile the GPLD'd source into a DLL and provide source for the DLL while keeping the rest of the app under a different license, couldn't you? Or am I missing something?